2 comments:

Pssh, not that cold. I was disappointed by the book "Defending Humanity". I didn't like its analysis of Jus in Jell-o. It ignored the transaction costs of going to war. Part of why there were/are limits to things like snipers and poisoning and assassination is there is an underlying tacit civilian economy, that is attempted to be preserved despite the outcome. Also, war leads to one's own inability to be optimal civilian economy players. Consider the USA, and how the Cold War has lead to their lack of universal healthcare. Their RW (and ours) doesn't want their poor to have a sense of community and by emotionally and intellectually healthy. Their split from Britian ensures their rich families have too much control over their military. Their House uses artwork ridings. Their Senate is too rural (we are mildy rural due to rural riding overcounting but a heavily urban country). The book is too left-wing and too pacifist, suggesting waiting for someone to get AI or bioweapons before intervening. International law is at a primitive state. McCarthy-ism was the resultant inefficiency of fighting Stalin. You have to consider your own propensity to tyranny when assessing threats; NSA needs to turn rationally and logically to policing the Agencies first. And to looking at nations with a chain-of-command not influenced by neocons...that being said, the development of the USA proliferation policies is superior to that of the United Nations to date. The UN has been far too accomodating of tyranny.You intervene against WMDs/non-Scottish-tyrannies if the benefits overcome the transaction costs.